IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the limited power of the Trial Court to recall summons and emphasized the need for respondents to challenge Summoning orders through appropriate legal remedies.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the order dated 04.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court') in the complaint case filed by the petitioner herein, being CIS No.9295/2017 titled Kaveri Parashar v. Kalind Parashar.

2. The above complaint has been filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging the respondent to have committed an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC').

3. Summons were issued by the learned Trial Court in the said complaint vide Order dated 12.02.2018 (in the Impugned Order, it is wrongly mentioned that the charge under Section 494 of the IPC was framed against the respondent by the Order dated 12.02.2018).

4. The respondent, on appearance before the learned Trial Court, moved an application for disposing of the proceedings in the complaint case as being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order has allowed the said application and disposed of the complaint holding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 324, submits that the Impugned Order is passed without jurisdiction. He submits that the learned Trial Court has no power to recall the summons issued against the accused. The only remedy for the accused is to challenge the Summoning Order by way of a revision petition or any other appropriate legal remedy available with the respondent in a Court where such an application/petition against the order of the learned Trial Court can be filed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C..She submits that the petitioner, instead of filing such petition, has moved the present petition. She further submits that the learned Trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner and therefore, the complaint has rightly been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by way of the Impugned Order.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. In Adalat Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court, considering the scheme of Chapters XV and XVI of the Cr.P.C., has held as under:

"14. But after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint he can issue process by way of summons under Section 204 of the Code. Therefore, what is necessary or a condition precedent for issuing process under Section 204 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate either by examination of the complainant and the witnesses or by the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint hence issue the process under Section 204 of b the Code. In none of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew case that before issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated